Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again

[bubbabgone]

Trump’s willingness to constantly repeat false claims has posed a unique challenge to fact-checkers. Most politicians quickly drop a Four-Pinocchio claim, either out of a duty to be accurate or concern that spreading false information could be politically damaging.

Not Trump. The president keeps going long after the facts are clear, in what appears to be a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version of it. He is not merely making gaffes or misstating things, he is purposely injecting false information into the national conversation.

To accurately reflect this phenomenon, The Washington Post Fact Checker is introducing a new category — the Bottomless Pinocchio. That dubious distinction will be awarded to politicians who repeat a false claim so many times that they are, in effect, engaging in campaigns of disinformation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

 

[americanwoman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

And who fact checks the fact checkers checking the fact checkers?

 

[bubbabgone]

And who fact checks the fact checkers checking the fact checkers?

Fact if I know.

 

[Mach]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

*edit: Beaten by Americanwoman!

Who fact checks the fact checkers who fact check the fact checkers?

And who fact checks them? And them? Infinite regress is your defense? I suppose we'll have a bottomless Pinocchios paired with your infinite deflection.

Trump had, and has, no legitimate, significant evidence to back his claims, but you're up in arms that the fact checker didn't back his own? OK.
Everyone knows Trump is full of ****, and that his supporters require no evidence, and hold him to account for nothing. Why try to debate it? Oh, the infinite thing, gotcha.

 

[bubbabgone]

*edit: Beaten by Americanwoman!

Who fact checks the fact checkers who fact check the fact checkers?

And who fact checks them? And them? Infinite regress is your defense? I suppose we'll have a bottomless Pinocchios paired with your infinite deflection.

Trump had, and has, no legitimate, significant evidence to back his claims, but you're up in arms that the fact checker didn't back his own? OK.
Everyone knows Trump is full of ****, and that his supporters require no evidence, and hold him to account for nothing. Why try to debate it? Oh, the infinite thing, gotcha.

Right.

 

[Rogue Valley]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

I have no idea why a Trumper is now worried about facts two years in.

 

[Mach]

Right.

But that's false. He linked to the refutation...an entire analysis for each one!

He in fact, fact-checked himself.

You get two Pinocchio. One for getting it wrong, one because irony-like.

Democrats Colluded:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-feed-it-to-the-fbi/?utm_term=.0c333515079f

Trump accused Mueller of conflicts of interest:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...en-their-independence/?utm_term=.79557d6d9050

Hint: Don't seriously try to defend Trump, it will just drag you down with them. I think you can do better bubbagone, I'm rooting for you.

 

[Born Free]

=bubbabgone;1069395641]

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times).​

Crooked Hillary paid for a phony dossier that was produced by the Russians. And it was used by the crooked FBI to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump's campaign.

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”

Mueller hired all Democrat lawyers for his investigation and he does have a conflict of interest. Mueller was best friends with crooked Comey. Plus

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...t-and-it-leads-directly-to-a-russian-oligarch

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pre...elationship-mueller-amounts/story?id=56914885

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...cial-counsel-glenn-reynolds-column/102990890/​

 

[Ikari]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

Trump is very clearly the most dishonest, lying, uncouth, uncivilized, unprofessional President we've ever had. I don't think anyone other than his cult dispute that.

 

[tres borrachos]

Maybe if Trump would stop lying we wouldn't need to fact check him all the time.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Crooked Hillary paid for a phony dossier that was produced by the Russians. And it was used by the crooked FBI to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump's campaign.

Newp. Simply didn't happen.

Mueller hired all Democrat lawyers for his investigation and he does have a conflict of interest. Mueller was best friends with crooked Comey. Plus

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...t-and-it-leads-directly-to-a-russian-oligarch

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pre...elationship-mueller-amounts/story?id=56914885

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...cial-counsel-glenn-reynolds-column/102990890/

Also didn't happen. Sad to watch you flail around like this, getting nothing right.

 

[Born Free]

Newp. Simply didn't happen.

Also didn't happen. Sad to watch you flail around like this, getting nothing right.

Nice try. You have "0" credibility, you saying "it didn't happen" is meaningless. :yawn:

 

[tres borrachos]

Nice try. You have "0" credibility, you saying "it didn't happen" is meaningless. :yawn:

Except he's right.

Crooked Hillary. That's such a clever nickname for her! How long did it take you to come up with that one?

Mueller and Comey are best friends? Like BFFs? They sit in the locker room and talk? Go on picnics with their wives? Was godfather to each other's kids?

 

[Praxas]

Nice try. You have "0" credibility, you saying "it didn't happen" is meaningless. :yawn:

That's funny coming from you who has ZERO credibility to begin with. /yawn at your comments.

 

[MTAtech]

It would appear to me that Trump cultists are not concerned with facts or they wouldn't be Trump cultists. They seem to accept anything he says as truth, regardless of whether it is the truth -- and then they go off repeating it as a fact.

An example of this include his claim that he created more jobs than anyone else. He hasn't. Job growth was stronger under Obama. Let's hear it for crowd size and how much he's doing.

In high school, there was a guy who told lies all the time and after a while nobody would accept what he said as anything but a lie. So, how is it that this guy gets away with it from 35% of the public?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Nice try. You have "0" credibility, you saying "it didn't happen" is meaningless. :yawn:

LOL! Coming from you, trying to pass off your lies as somehow, magically, based in reality.

What you claimed simply didn't happen, nor can you show otherwise.

Like always.

 

[Born Free]

LOL! Coming from you, trying to pass off your lies as somehow, magically, based in reality.

What you claimed simply didn't happen, nor can you show otherwise.

Like always.

You claimed it didn't happen, PROVE IT

 

[Rogue Valley]

You claimed it didn't happen, PROVE IT

You made the claim, you PROVE IT

 

[Amelia]

It's a needed phrase.

Trump is so far off the usual charts when it comes to lying (and other malfeasance), that there has been a need for new language to describe the phenomenon.

 

[tres borrachos]

You claimed it didn't happen, PROVE IT

That's not how things work. You can't prove something didn't happen. He's right. You made the claim - now you need to prove it.

 

[Born Free]

That's not how things work. You can't prove something didn't happen. He's right. You made the claim - now you need to prove it.

Prove what you just posted. Further I did prove my comments.

 

[uptower]

If a politician - the president no less - must repeat a disproved lie no less than 20 times (and some over 80 or a hundred) the fault does not lie with the fact checkers. It lies with the president and those who continue to defend such nonsense.

 

[Born Free]

You made the claim, you PROVE IT

I did prove it, you just can't read. Further you just blow off with your same old ****. It didn't happen. To me you don't happen.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You claimed it didn't happen, PROVE IT

Don't have to. You're the one who made the asinine claim that they did.

This seems to be confusing for some people, but when you make an assertion in the positive, it's up to YOU to substantiate it.

And I know you can't, so there's really no point.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I did prove it, you just can't read. Further you just blow off with your same old ****. It didn't happen. To me you don't happen.

No, you just clicked your Ruby Slippers together, metaphorically, and really, really, REALLY wished they were true. You have not demonstrated that they actually are.